IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-ancp-pon-02

"Bitar, Nabil N" <nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com> Wed, 11 April 2012 20:09 UTC

Return-Path: <nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A35C11E80BB; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 13:09:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0oG0nKdcJ-d7; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 13:09:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fldsmtpe03.verizon.com (fldsmtpe03.verizon.com [140.108.26.142]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0202E11E8075; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 13:09:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: false
Received: from unknown (HELO fldsmtpi02.verizon.com) ([166.68.71.144]) by fldsmtpe03.verizon.com with ESMTP; 11 Apr 2012 20:09:01 +0000
From: "Bitar, Nabil N" <nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com>
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.75,406,1330905600"; d="scan'208,217"; a="251432354"
Received: from fldp1lumxc7hb01.verizon.com (HELO FLDP1LUMXC7HB01.us.one.verizon.com) ([166.68.45.78]) by fldsmtpi02.verizon.com with ESMTP; 11 Apr 2012 20:09:01 +0000
Received: from fldp1lumxc7v63.us.one.verizon.com ([169.254.3.155]) by FLDP1LUMXC7HB01.us.one.verizon.com ([166.68.45.78]) with mapi; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 16:09:01 -0400
To: Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>, "draft-ietf-ancp-pon.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ancp-pon.all@tools.ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 16:09:01 -0400
Thread-Topic: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-ancp-pon-02
Thread-Index: Ac0YHu+pZKCam1sKTTW3ItioRETerA==
Message-ID: <CBAB592E.25BBC%nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com>
In-Reply-To: <4f7875ec.6965b40a.3e21.5e69@mx.google.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.10.0.110310
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CBAB592E25BBCnabilnbitarverizoncom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 13:09:59 -0700
Cc: "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, 'IETF' <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-ancp-pon-02
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 20:09:03 -0000

Hi,
Thanks for the comments. Please see inline.

Thanks,
Nabil

From: Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com<mailto:ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>>
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2012 11:34:54 -0400
To: "draft-ietf-ancp-pon.all@tools.ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-ancp-pon.all@tools.ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-ancp-pon.all@tools.ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-ancp-pon.all@tools.ietf.org>>
Cc: "gen-art@ietf.org<mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>" <gen-art@ietf.org<mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>>, 'IETF' <ietf@ietf.org<mailto:ietf@ietf.org>>
Subject: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-ancp-pon-02

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Sorry for the late review due to IET meeting.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive.



Document: draft-ietf-ancp-pon-02

Reviewer: Roni Even

Review Date:2012–4–1

IETF LC End Date: 2012–3–30

IESG Telechat date:



Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Informational RFC.



Major issues:



Minor issues:



Nits/editorial comments:



In section 4 ”However, the broadcast capability on the PON enables the AN (OLT) to send one copy on the PON as opposed to N  copies of a multicast channel on the PON serving N premises being  receivers” I think the “being” before the last word should be deleted

<NB> are you OK saying: "However, the broadcast capability on the PON enables the AN (OLT) to send one copy on the PON as opposed to one copy to each receiver on the PON



General editorial comment is about page breaks which can be better like section 7 title is at the end of a page and the text is in the next page. Also some of the figures and their descriptions are split between pages.

<NB> will address that.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email